Items tagged with oa.incentives in Open Access Tracking Project (OATP)Items tagged with oa.incentives in Open Access Tracking Project (OATP)/hubs/oatp/tags/1322
TagTeam social RSS aggregratorEUA and Science Europe launch initiative to further develop scholarly research assessment methodologies - ERA Portal Austria<p>On 14 May 2019, the European University Association (EUA) and Science Europe published a statement calling for moving away from current ways of assessing research, and to establish systems that better assess research potential. According to the paper, today the outcomes of scholarly research are often measured through methods based on quantitative, albeit approximate, indicators such as the journal impact factor. The authors underline the need to explore new and improved research assessment approaches, also indispensable for turning these innovations into systemic reforms.</p>
Thu, 23 May 2019 04:41:00 -0400https://era.gv.at/object/news/4724
oa.newoa.austriaoa.assessmentoa.science_europeoa.jifoa.fundersoa.metricsoa.euaoa.incentivesThe Guild publishes recommendations for transition towards Open Acess - ERA Portal Austria<p>On 2 May 2019, the Guild has published a position paper presenting its proposals for a successful transition towards Open Access. Ahead of the publication of Plan S’ revised Implementation Guidance, the paper outlines how Plan S can be enhanced to realise the ambitions of Open Science. On 2 May 2019, the Guild has published a position paper presenting its proposals for a successful transition towards Open Access. Ahead of the publication of Plan S’ revised Implementation Guidance, the paper outlines how Plan S can be enhanced to realise the ambitions of Open Science. </p><p> </p><ul><li><img alt="" src="https://era.gv.at/object/news/4705/thumbnail/1_Hand_Schloss_Computer.jpg/maxwidth/460"></li></ul>Thu, 16 May 2019 06:06:00 -0400https://era.gv.at/mobile/news/4705
oa.newoa.austriaoa.recommendationsoa.fundersoa.speedoa.growthoa.plan_soa.open_scienceoa.incentivesoa.collaborationoa.dataoa.conversionsThe European University Association and Science Europe Join Efforts to Improve Scholarly Research Assessment Methodologies<p>"EUA and Science Europe are committed to working together on building a strong dialogue between their members, with a view to:</p>
<p>• support necessary changes for a better balance between qualitative and quantitative research assessment approaches, aiming at evaluating the merits of scholarly research. Furthermore, novel criteria and methods need to be developed towards a fairer and more transparent assessment of research, researchers and research teams, conducive to selecting excellent proposals and researchers.governments and public authorities to guarantee scholars and students the rights that constitute academic freedom, including the rights to freedom of expression, opinion, thought, information and assembly as well as the rights to education and teaching;</p>
<p>• recognise the diversity of research outputs and other relevant academic activities and their value in a manner that is appropriate to each research field and that challenges the overreliance on journal-based metrics.universities, funding agencies, academies and other research organisations to ensure that all researchers, teachers and students are guaranteed academic freedom, by fostering a culture in which free expression and the open exchange of opinion are valued and by shielding the research and teaching community from sanctions for exercising academic freedom.</p>
<p>• consider a broad range of criteria to reward and incentivise research quality as the fundamental principle of scholarly research, and ascertain assessment processes and methods that accurately reflect the vast dimensions of research quality and credit all scientific contributions appropriately. EUA and Science Europe will launch activities to further engage their members in improving and strengthening their research assessment practices. Building on these actions, both associations commit to maintaining a continuous dialogue and explore opportunities for joint actions, with a view to promoting strong synergies between the rewards and incentives structures of research funders and research performing organisations, as well as universities...."</p>
Thu, 16 May 2019 05:17:00 -0400https://eua.eu/downloads/publications/joint%20statement%20eua-se%20on%20research%20assessment.pdf
oa.newoa.europeoa.euaoa.universitiesoa.science_europeoa.academic_freedomoa.p&toa.assessmentoa.qualityoa.jifoa.impactoa.incentivesoa.heioa.metricsThe European University Association and Science Europe Join Efforts to Improve Scholarly Research Assessment Methodologies<p>"<span>EUA and Science Europe have issued a joint statement on the need for research funders and research performing organisations as well as universities to combine their efforts to develop and implement more accurate, transparent and responsible approaches to scholarly research assessment.</span></p>
<p>
</p><p>Representing a vast section of Europe’s research and higher education system, EUA and Science Europe are committed to working together on building a strong dialogue between their members with a view to improving research assessment methodologies...."</p>
<p></p>
Thu, 16 May 2019 05:14:00 -0400https://eua.eu/resources/publications/830:the-european-university-association-and-science-europe-join-efforts-to-improve-scholarly-research-assessment-methodologies.html
oa.newoa.europeoa.euaoa.universitiesoa.science_europeoa.assessmentoa.incentivesoa.heiData sharing and how it can benefit your scientific career<p>"Ecologist Thomas Crowther knew that scientists had already collected a vast amount of field data on forests worldwide. But almost all of those data were sequestered in researchers’ notebooks or personal computers, making them unavailable to the wider scientific community. In 2012, Crowther, then a postdoctoral researcher at Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut, began to e-mail and cold-call researchers to request their data. He started to assemble an inventory, now hosted by the Global Forest Biodiversity Initiative, an international research collaboration, that contains data on more than 1 million locations. Data are stored in CSV files (plain-text files that contain a list of data) on servers at Crowther’s present laboratory at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich and on those of a collaborator at Purdue University in West Lafayette, Indiana; he hopes to outsource database storage to a third-party organization with expertise in archiving and access.</p>
<p>After years of courting and cajoling, Crowther has persuaded about half of the data owners to make their data public. The other half, he laments, say that they support open data in principle, but have specific reasons for keeping their data sets private. Mainly, he explains, they want to use their data to conduct and publish their own studies.</p>
<p>Crowther’s database challenges reflect the current state of science: partly open, partly closed, and with unclear and inconsistent policies and expectations on data sharing that are still in flux...."</p>
Mon, 13 May 2019 09:58:00 -0400https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-01506-x
oa.newoa.dataoa.obstaclesoa.incentivesoa.benefitsoa.policiesoa.doisoa.attributionoa.collaborationNudging transparent behavioural science and policy | Behavioural Public Policy | Cambridge Core<p>Abstract: There are inherent differences in the priorities of academics and policy-makers. These pose unique challenges for teams such as the Behavioural Insights Team (BIT), which has positioned itself as an organisation conducting academically rigorous behavioural science research in policy settings. Here we outline the threats to research transparency and reproducibility that stem from working with policy-makers and other non-academic stakeholders. These threats affect how we perform, communicate, verify and evaluate research. Solutions that increase research transparency include pre-registering study protocols, making data open and publishing summaries of results. We suggest an incentive structure (a simple ‘nudge’) that rewards BIT's non-academic partners for engaging in these practices.</p>
Sun, 12 May 2019 06:42:00 -0400https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/behavioural-public-policy/article/nudging-transparent-behavioural-science-and-policy/58BFA4668394046C363C041936C6D097
oa.newoa.incentivesoa.reproducibilityoa.dataoa.recommendationsoa.sshThe Guild publishes recommendations for transition towards Open Acess - ERA Portal Austria<p>On 2 May 2019, the Guild has published a position paper presenting its proposals for a successful transition towards Open Access. Ahead of the publication of Plan S’ revised Implementation Guidance, the paper outlines how Plan S can be enhanced to realise the ambitions of Open Science. </p>
Fri, 10 May 2019 02:04:00 -0400https://era.gv.at/object/news/4705
oa.newoa.austriaoa.recommendationsoa.plan_soa.implementationoa.guidesoa.open_scienceoa.fundersoa.business_modelsoa.incentivesoa.universitiesoa.heiObserving open access | Research Information<p>"<span>However, it is not until more recently that we have seen the emergence of truly international efforts to coordinate OA. The emergence of Plan S, through cOAlition S, is the newest wave of innovation that seeks to break through the impasse that has developed in some countries. In our report, we observed the US had faltered in its progress toward increasing OA, levelling off at around 42 per cent of overall publication output through OA channels in both 2012 and 2016. </span></p>
<p><span>Of course, it will be several years until Plan S is implemented and we still don’t know how it will finally be realised. However, with recent progress in Germany on Projekt DEAL and the new guidelines from REF 2021, it is clear that not only are both the UK and Germany travelling toward an open future, but also that, since those two countries are among the most collaborative in the world after the US, there are many countries who benefit from the stance taken by those with a progressive agenda.</span></p>
<p><span>The UK’s overall percentage of OA content has grown rapidly, outpacing both Germany and the US in recent years. As shown in Figure 1, the UK’s approach to policy around OA has paid dividends. This is not to say that this hasn’t taken significant sustained investment and resource – but innovation seldom comes for free....</span></p>
<p><span>In 2021, this will inevitably have an impact on the choices that smaller institutions can make regarding their REF returns, the results of those returns, and the potential funding balance going forward. Research England is clearly not insensitive to these challenges, as it has included a number of options for institutions to argue for exceptions and include a percentage of non-OA outputs. However, the direction is clear: open access will form part of the REF for the first time and it has been thoroughly embedded in the most recent guidance on submission, panel criteria and working methods published by Research England. This is a strong signal to the community and a strong ‘measurement’ that pushes the sector toward open access...."</span></p>
<p> </p>
Thu, 02 May 2019 07:02:00 -0400https://www.researchinformation.info/analysis-opinion/observing-open-access
oa.newoa.progressoa.plan_soa.ukoa.germanyoa.growthoa.assessmentoa.metricsoa.incentivesThe real issues 'are being blurred' | Research Information<p>"[Q] What do you see as the biggest challenges in scholarly publishing today?</p>
<p>[A] A mixture of cost, inaccessibility, and the academic reward mechanism which has grown up around particular modes of scholarly communication. Cost is being driven by two factors: the increasing amount of atomised research that researchers are publishing with subscription journals; and the continued above inflation price increases, particularly amongst some of the very largest publishers.</p>
<p>The challenge of inaccessibility is a very significant one. There is no one established model for open access, there’s still a lot of innovation going on and there are a number of models emerging. We haven’t yet found a mechanism for supporting the learned society journals in particular, who therefore become conflicted because on one hand they are benefiting from some of the monopolistic behaviours around copyright transfer, but on the other hand are using the funds that are generated as part of the publishing business to support their learned society activities. If you end up in a pay-to-publish open access world, that immediately disenfranchises the very people who can’t access the current content in the first place.</p>
<p>The academic reward mechanisms, whereby you have journal title as a proxy of quality, means publishing in high-impact journals is actively rewarded and encouraged and used as a short cut to determine career paths and promotion. There’s a perverse incentive to go after being published in certain places, rather than in making the outputs of publicly funded research available to a much broader community...."</p>
Thu, 02 May 2019 06:58:00 -0400https://www.researchinformation.info/analysis-opinion/real-issues-are-being-blurred
oa.newoa.interviewsoa.peopleoa.plan_soa.pricesoa.societiesoa.incentivesoa.impactoa.prestigeoa.p&tStudy quantifies the growing traction of open access<p>"Now an analysis shows that researchers in the UK are indeed posting their papers online earlier, as are their colleagues all over the world. The time researchers are taking to post papers online shrunk by an average of 472 days per country between 2013 and 2017, finds a <a href="http://oro.open.ac.uk/60478">study</a> published on 17 April and to be presented at the ACM/IEEE Joint Conference on Digital Libraries in June. Though the authors can’t definitively say what’s behind the trend, they suggest that the Research England policy and other funding eligibility requirements recently announced worldwide are pushing academics to rapidly make their work freely available...."</p>
Thu, 18 Apr 2019 10:24:00 -0400https://physicstoday.scitation.org/do/10.1063/PT.6.2.20190418a/full/
oa.newoa.mandatesoa.greenoa.speedoa.embargoesoa.trendsoa.incentivesoa.ukoa.refoa.complianceoa.depositsoa.comparisonsoa.policiesoa.repositoriesoa.growthImpact factors are still widely used in academic evaluations<p>"<span>Almost half of research-intensive universities consider journal impact factors when deciding whom to promote, a survey of North American institutions has found.</span></p>
<p>About 40% of institutes with a strong focus on research mention impact factors in documents used in the review, promotion and tenure process, according to the analysis, which examined more than 800 documents across 129 institutions in the United States and Canada.</p>
<p>The data imply that many universities are evaluating the performance of their staff using a metric that has been <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-01642-w">widely criticized as a crude and misleading proxy for the quality of scientists’ work</a>....</p>
<p>Less than one-quarter of the institutions mentioned impact factor or a closely related term such as “high impact journal” in their documents. But this proportion rose to 40% for the 57 research-intensive universities included in the survey. By contrast, just 18% of universities that focused on master’s degrees mentioned journal impact factors (see ‘High impact’).</p>
<p>In more than 80% of the mentions at research-heavy universities, the language in the documents encouraged the use of the impact factor in academic evaluations. Only 13% of mentions at these institutions came with any cautionary words about the metric. The language also tended to imply that high impact factors were associated with better research: 61% of the mentions portrayed the impact factor as a measure of the quality of research, for example, and 35% stated that it reflected the impact, importance or significance of the work...."</p>
Fri, 12 Apr 2019 05:38:00 -0400https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-01151-4
oa.newoa.jifoa.impactoa.citationsoa.p&toa.incentivesoa.metricsUniversities should be working for the greater good | Times Higher Education (THE)<p>"<span>What might happen if the provost of a highly visible research university that had recently reconfirmed its public-facing mission gathered the entire campus together – deans, department chairs and faculty – in rethinking the university’s promotion and tenure standards from top to bottom? What might become possible if that provost were to say that our definitions of “excellence” in research, teaching and service must have that public-facing mission at their heart? What might be possible if that public mission really became Job One?</span></p>
<p>The provost paused. Then he gave his answer: “Any institution that did that would immediately lose competitiveness within its cohort.” ...</p>
<p><span>The pursuit of prestige is not the problem in and of itself, and excellence is, of course, something to strive for. In fact, friendly competition can push us all to do better. But excellence and prestige and the competitiveness that fuels their pursuit are too often based in marketing – indeed, in the logic of the market – rather than in the actual purposes of higher education. It’s a diversion from the on-the-ground work of producing and sharing knowledge that can result in misplaced investments and misaligned priorities...."</span></p>
<p> </p>
Thu, 11 Apr 2019 06:08:00 -0400https://www.timeshighereducation.com/features/universities-should-be-working-greater-good
oa.newoa.metricsoa.impactoa.p&toa.incentivesoa.universitiesoa.qualityoa.prestigeoa.heiUse of the Journal Impact Factor in academic review, promotion, and tenure evaluations [PeerJ Preprints]<p>Abstract: The Journal Impact Factor (JIF) was originally designed to aid libraries in deciding which journals to index and purchase for their collections. Over the past few decades, however, it has become a relied upon metric used to evaluate research articles based on journal rank. Surveyed faculty often report feeling pressure to publish in journals with high JIFs and mention reliance on the JIF as one problem with current academic evaluation systems. While faculty reports are useful, information is lacking on how often and in what ways the JIF is currently used for review, promotion, and tenure (RPT). We therefore collected and analyzed RPT documents from a representative sample of 129 universities from the United States and Canada and 381 of their academic units. We found that 40% of doctoral, research-intensive (R-type) institutions and 18% of master’s, or comprehensive (M-type) institutions explicitly mentioned the JIF, or closely related terms, in their RPT documents. Undergraduate, or baccalaureate (B-type) institutions did not mention it at all. A detailed reading of these documents suggests that institutions may also be using a variety of terms to indirectly refer to the JIF. Our qualitative analysis shows that 87% of the institutions that mentioned the JIF supported the metric’s use in at least one of their RPT documents, while 13% of institutions expressed caution about the JIF’s use in evaluations. None of the RPT documents we analyzed heavily criticized the JIF or prohibited its use in evaluations. Of the institutions that mentioned the JIF, 63% associated it with quality, 40% with impact, importance, or significance, and 20% with prestige, reputation, or status. In sum, our results show that the use of the JIF is encouraged in RPT evaluations, especially at research-intensive universities, and indicates there is work to be done to improve evaluation processes to avoid the potential misuse of metrics like the JIF.</p>
Tue, 09 Apr 2019 06:49:00 -0400https://peerj.com/preprints/27638/
oa.newoa.p&toa.jifoa.impactoa.incentivesoa.metrics2017-2018 EUA Open Access Survey Results<p>"The publication of the results of the fourth EUA Open Access Survey coincides with the emergence of two important approaches in the construction of an Open Science environment. The first is „Plan S“, signed by an increasing number of research funding organisations. The second is the development of „Publish and Read“ models in negotiations with publishers by scholar negotiating consortia. These can be considered as complementary in the sense that the first aims to rapidly expand Open Access to research publications, and the second to control the total amount of funds spent by research performing organisations, that is, universities and research institutes, to publish in and to have access to scientific journals. The need to address these two major aims concurrently is the main goal of the work of the EUA Expert Group on Science 2.0/Open Science, and more generally EUA’s central objective for the future of scientific publications....</p>
<p>Key results regarding Open Access to research publications</p>
<p>• 62% of the institutions surveyed have an Open Access policy on research publications in place and 26% are in the process of drafting one.</p>
<p>• At institutions with an OA policy in place: - Almost 50% require publications to be self-archived in the repository - 60% recommend that researchers publish in OA - 74% do not include any provisions linking Open Access to research evaluation. Only 12% have mandatory guidelines linking OA to internal research assessment.</p>
<p>• Despite the fact that most surveyed institutions have implemented an Open Access policy for research publications, 73% had not defined specific Open Access targets or timelines.</p>
<p>• 70% of these institutions monitor deposits in the repository. However, only 40% monitor Open Access publishing and only 30% monitor related costs (gold OA).</p>
<p>• Librarians are most knowledgeable about and most committed to (~80%) Open Access (publishers’ policies, H2020 rules) followed by institutional leadership (~50%). For researchers, including early-stage researchers, the figure drops to ~20%. </p>
<p>• Raising awareness and developing additional incentives for researchers to make their work available via Open Access are top priorities...."</p>
Thu, 04 Apr 2019 05:46:00 -0400https://eua.eu/downloads/publications/2017-2018%20open%20access%20survey%20results.pdf
oa.newoa.universitiesoa.costsoa.surveysoa.feesoa.incentivesoa.unfamiliarityoa.plan_soa.offsetsoa.goldoa.monitoringoa.greenoa.repositoriesoa.heioa.journals[GOAL] OA2020 Mainland China Signatory Libraries responded to Plan S Guidance on Implementation<p>"The followings are the discussed response to Plan S Guidance on Implementation.</p>
<p>01 We are in broad support of Plan S and its goals to ensure immediate and complete open access to journal articles resulting from publicly funded research to the world. We applaud the effort of Plan S to provide strong incentives to make research open access. We support an international effort to achieve this goal worldwide as soon as possible.</p>
<p>02 We fully recognize that the need for forceful and accountable policies by public funders in research, education, and libraries, to facilitate open access against various entrenched interests or the inertia of the status quo. We urge all in research, education, publishing, platforms, repositories, and libraries to engage diligently in transformative efforts abreast with time to meet the challenges.</p>
<p>03 We support the Final Conference Statement of the 14th Berlin Conference on Open Access with its commitments. We urge all the publishers to work with the global research community to effect complete and immediate open access according to the Statement.</p>
<p>04 We support the principles and roadmaps of OA2020 Initiative which aims to transform a majority of today’s scholarly journals from subscription to OA publishing, while continues to support new forms of OA publishing. We believe the transition process can be realized within the framework of currently available resources. We see no legitimate reasons for, and will object to, any attempts to increase spending from the original subscribing institutions in the transformation.</p>
<p>05 We support that authors retain copyrights of their publications in open access publishing through journals or open access platforms.</p>
<p>06 We support that open access publications are made under open licenses. We support the use of the CC_BY license as the preferred one but recommend that other CC licenses also be allowed as compliant to Plan S.</p>
<p>07 We recognize the strong need for compliant requirements, agreed by the research communities, for open access journals and platforms. We agree that infrastructural instruments like DOAJ and OpenDOAR can be utilized to help identifying and signaling compliance, but we urge that cOAlition S and other funders recognize and support other appropriate mechanisms for the purpose and require any such instruments are put under international oversight by the global research community to ensure their no-for-profit nature, inclusiveness, objectiveness, integrity, and efficiency.</p>
<p>08 We commend the recognition by Plan S that there exist different models of financing and paying for Open Access publication. We support an inclusive range of immediate open access publishing approaches. We support the transparency and monitoring of open access publication costs and fees.</p>
<p>09 We urge that cOAlition S and other funders, through Plan S or other means, provide financial support for no-fee OA journals. The wide range of support approaches to no-fee OA journals should be encouraged to enhance the diversity of open access publishing and competiveness of publishing market, and to avoid the perverse effect of giving no-fee journals an incentive to start charging fees. While the support can start with general term statements, measures can be timely designed and tested to encourage quality, integrity, transparency and openness, and increasing host investment and other diverse and appropriate income.</p>
<p>10 We support that where article processing charges (APCs) apply, efforts are made to establish a fair and reasonable APC level, including equitable waiver policies, that reflects the costs involved in the quality assurance, editing, and publishing process and how that adds value to the publication. We hold it very important that any such effort should take into consideration of the diversity in the world to ensure applicability and affordability of any such measures across countries and disciplines.</p>
<p>11 We commend the support and requirements of Plan S for financing APCs for open access publication in subscription journals (‘hybrid Open Access’) only under transformative agreements. These agreements should be temporary and transitional, with a shift to full open access within a very few years.</p>
<p>12 We understand the purposes and the benefits of using ORCIDs in journal publications. Considering different paces of adopting ORCID in different regions and disciplines, we recommend that it is implemented as a preferred condition, at least in the short beginning years. We recommend the same treatment for using DOI.</p>
<p>13 We support the Plan S recommendation that “all publications and also other research outputs deposited in open repositories.” We recommend that Plan S make full acknowledge and use of the full range of capabilities of open repositories to support open access, long-term preservation, research management, and re-use.</p>
<p>14 We encourage that Plan S takes the transformative green OA mechanism as one of venues to implement open access, as long as the embargo period of comSat, 30 Mar 2019 06:09:00 -0400http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/2019-March/005095.html
oa.newoa.plan_soa.chinaoa.librariesoa.recommendationsoa.greenoa.conversionsoa.hybridoa.no-feeoa.incentivesoa.costsoa.feesoa.business_modelsoa.oa2020oa.licensingoa.copyrightoa.repositoriesoa.libreoa.rights-retentionEp. 37: Crisis Mapping, Citation Tracking, and Sexual Harassment in Science<p>"Jarrod Sport reports on the development of a program to improve the tracking of citations in scholarly journals...."</p>
Fri, 29 Mar 2019 07:44:00 -0400https://undark.org/article/podcast-37-crisis-mapping-citation-tracking-sexual-harassment/
oa.newoa.audiooa.citationsoa.sciteoa.prestigeoa.impactoa.interviewsoa.jifoa.altmetricsoa.incentivesoa.metricsOpenness: An interview with Daniel Hook, CEO of Digital Science - The Scholarly Kitchen<p>"<span>I think that biggest barrier is the existing system of incentives – people are not made professor for making their research openly available — that needs to change. The current system was never built to scale to the current size of the research world. I think that there will be some radical changes in scholarly communication and evaluation. Research, however, is quite rightly a conservative world. Systems need to be tried and tested – we can’t afford to switch to a system that is susceptible to effects like fake news. So, I don’t think that change will happen quickly....</span></p>
<p><span>As a researcher, I want it to be simple. I don’t want to have to find money from different pots to publish my work. I don’t want to have to understand licensing and copyright law nor do I want to have to understand if my funder’s requirements are at odds with my institution’s requirements of me or indeed my government’s views on what constitutes open. I also really don’t want to have to go through the same thing with my data and my software as well as my journal article. So, in short, yes, I do think that there needs to be simplification. Not wanting to wade into the minefield that is Plan S, I will say that one thing that must be welcome to everyone is that there is now clear coordination going on between different stakeholders. Ideally this would lead to a framework or standard that allows stakeholders to adopt or to sign up to a standardized set of Open Access requirements that are internally consistent and easy to understand...."</span></p>
Mon, 11 Mar 2019 06:24:00 -0400https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2019/03/11/openness-an-interview-with-daniel-hook-ceo-of-digital-science/
oa.newoa.peopleoa.interviewsoa.digital_scienceoa.incentivesoa.plan_soa.ukoa.policiesoa.toolsoa.disciplinesoa.humanitiesoa.preprintsoa.versionsoa.sshThe Scientific Paper Is Obsolete. Here's What's Next. - The Atlantic<p>"Perhaps the paper itself is to blame. Scientific methods evolve now at the speed of software; the skill most in demand among physicists, biologists, chemists, geologists, even anthropologists and research psychologists, is facility with programming languages and “data science” packages. And yet the basic means of communicating scientific results hasn’t changed for 400 years. Papers may be posted online, but they’re still text and pictures on a page.</p>
<p>What would you get if you designed the scientific paper from scratch today? ...</p>
<p>Software is a dynamic medium; paper isn’t. When you think in those terms it does seem strange that research like Strogatz’s, the study of dynamical systems, is so often being shared on paper ...</p>
<p>I spoke to Theodore Gray, who has since left Wolfram Research to become a full-time writer. He said that his work on the notebook was in part motivated by the feeling, well formed already by the early 1990s, “that <em>obviously</em> all scientific communication, all technical papers that involve any sort of data or mathematics or modeling or graphs or plots or anything like that, <em>obviously</em> don’t belong on paper. That was just <em>completely obvious</em> in, let’s say, 1990,” he said. ..."</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>Mon, 04 Mar 2019 07:38:00 -0500https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/04/the-scientific-paper-is-obsolete/556676/
oa.genresoa.journalsoa.interactivityoa.incentivesoa.recommendationsoa.pdfoa.imagesoa.flossoa.jupyteroa.videooa.toolsoa.platformsoa.dynamicoa.open_notebooksoa.dataoa.softwareoa.formatsTHE OPEN GOVERNMENT PARTNERSHIP: FOURTH OPEN GOVERNMENT NATIONAL ACTION PLAN FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, February 2019 <p>"This roadmap for the next two years outlines a selection of Trump Administration objectives to make government information more open and accessible for developers, academics, entrepreneurs and everyday Americans....</p>
<p>3) Provide Public Access to Federally Funded Research</p>
<p>Primarily through the National Science and Technology Council (Council), the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy coordinates United States efforts to make the results of Federally funded scientific research more accessible and useful to the public, industry, and the scientific community. In the Council’s Subcommittee on Open Science, thirty-two United States agency funders collaborate to improve the preservation, discoverability, accessibility, and usability of Federally funded scientific research, with the aims of bolstering the reliability of that research, accelerating scientific discovery, stimulating innovation, enhancing economic growth and job creation.</p>
<p>In 2018, the Subcommittee on Open Science was re-chartered to promote open science principles across the Federal Government and increase public access to Federally-funded research results. The Subcommittee’s priorities include: (1) Facilitating coordination across Federal Government agencies on open science efforts; (2) Developing appropriate incentives to encourage researchers to adopt open science principles; (3) Streamlining and synchronizing agency and researcher data management practices for maximum utility to the public; (4) Collaborating with academia, researcher communities, and industry toward the development of research data standards that further open science. As part of the Subcommittee’s objectives, it will develop a report that provides recommendations for improvements to existing Federal open access policies and continued collaboration between agencies on achieving open access objectives...."</p>
Sat, 02 Mar 2019 04:48:00 -0500https://open.usa.gov/assets/files/NAP4-fourth-open-government-national-action-plan.pdf
oa.newoa.usaoa.trumpoa.governmentoa.dataoa.open_scienceoa.incentivesoa.qualityoa.discoverabilityoa.economic_impactoa.policiesoa.policies.fundersoa.funders.publicoa.fundersoa.dmpoa.standardsoa.industryMeta-Research: How significant are the public dimensions of faculty work in review, promotion and tenure documents? | eLife<p>Abstract: Much of the work done by faculty at both public and private universities has significant public dimensions: it is often paid for by public funds; it is often aimed at serving the public good; and it is often subject to public evaluation. To understand how the public dimensions of faculty work are valued, we analyzed review, promotion, and tenure documents from a representative sample of 129 universities in the US and Canada. Terms and concepts related to public and community are mentioned in a large portion of documents, but mostly in ways that relate to service, which is an undervalued aspect of academic careers. Moreover, the documents make significant mention of traditional research outputs and citation-based metrics: however, such outputs and metrics reward faculty work targeted to academics, and often disregard the public dimensions. Institutions that seek to embody their public mission could therefore work towards changing how faculty work is assessed and incentivized.</p>
Wed, 27 Feb 2019 07:56:00 -0500https://elifesciences.org/articles/42254
oa.newoa.p&toa.incentivesoa.surveysoa.metricsoa.usaoa.canadaProject: Roundtable on Aligning Incentives for Open Science<p>"<span>In order to increase the contribution of Open Science to producing better science, the Roundtable on Aligning Incentives for Open Science will convene critical stakeholders from universities, funding agencies, societies, foundations, and industry to discuss the effectiveness of current incentives for adopting Open Science practices, current barriers and disincentives of all types, and ways to move forward to align incentives that support common missions and values and mitigate disincentives. The Roundtable will convene two times per year and create a venue for exchange of ideas and a mechanism for joint strategic planning among key stakeholders. ..."</span></p>
Tue, 26 Feb 2019 09:47:00 -0500https://www8.nationalacademies.org/pa/projectview.aspx?key=51293
oa.newoa.open_scienceoa.incentivesoa.eventsoa.obstaclesoa.strategiesoa.usaA New EPFL Fund Rewards Nine Open Science Ideas |<p>The first call for proposal for the EPFL Open Science Fund attracted nearly 50 propositions. Nine projects were selected and will receive support to develop ideas fostering open and reproducible research on campus, and beyond. </p>
<p>In September 2018, EPFL President Martin Vetterli announced the creation of the Open Science Fund to support the best ideas from everyone on campus with a total of CHF 3 Mio over the period 2019-2021.</p>
Tue, 19 Feb 2019 08:25:00 -0500https://www.myscience.ch/news/wire/a_new_epfl_fund_rewards_nine_open_science_ideas-2019-epfl
oa.ctpoa.newoa.incentivesoa.fundersoa.open_scienceoa.fundsoa.switzerlandoa.fundingoa.epflOpen-Access Is Going Mainstream. Here’s Why That Could Transform Academic Life. - The Chronicle of Higher Education<p>"That may soon change. Smaller-scale efforts are mixing with top-down decisions — through universities’ subscription negotiations and a major European plan that mandates open-access publication for certain research — to put unusual pressure on publishers.</p>
<p>Don’t think these battles are confined to the library or an individual discipline. The changes have the potential to alter nearly everything about how research is disseminated — and therefore how departments spend money, researchers collaborate, and faculty careers advance...."</p>
Mon, 18 Feb 2019 11:42:00 -0500https://www.chronicle.com/interactives/Trend19-OpenAccess-Main
oa.newoa.progressoa.growthoa.librariesoa.plan_soa.misunderstandingsoa.feesoa.embargoesoa.policies.fundersoa.policies.universitiesoa.mandatesoa.elsevieroa.prestigeoa.obstaclesoa.cancellationsoa.heioa.policiesoa.universitiesoa.fundersoa.booksoa.objectionsoa.debatesoa.conversionsoa.declarations_of_independenceoa.offsetsoa.hybridoa.p&toa.incentivesoa.boycottsoa.u.californiaoa.negotiationsoa.big_dealsIndian payment-for-papers proposal rattles scientists<p>"Indian scientists are criticizing a government proposal to pay graduate students who publish in select journals. They fear that it could degrade the quality of research and lead to an increase in scientific misconduct, by incentivizing publishing rather than good science...."</p>
Sun, 17 Feb 2019 07:44:00 -0500https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-00514-1
oa.newoa.indiaoa.studentsoa.negativeoa.incentivesoa.risksoa.qualityoa.journalsoa.prestigeoa.southBlacklisting or Whitelisting? Deterring Faculty in Developing Countries from Publishing in Substandard Journals<p>Abstract: A thriving black-market economy of scam scholarly publishing, typically referred to as 'predatory publishing,' threatens the quality of scientific literature globally. The scammers publish research with minimal or no peer review and are motivated by article processing charges and not the advancement of scholarship. Authors involved in this scam are either duped or willingly taking advantage of the low rejection rates and quick publication process. Geographic analysis of the origin of predatory journal articles indicates that they predominantly come from developing countries. Consequently, most universities in developing countries operate blacklists of deceptive journals to deter faculty from submitting to predatory publishers. The present article discusses blacklisting and, conversely, whitelisting of legitimate journals as options of deterrence. Specifically, the article provides a critical evaluation of the two approaches by explaining how they work and comparing their pros and cons to inform a decision about which is the better deterrent.</p>
Wed, 13 Feb 2019 08:50:00 -0500https://muse.jhu.edu/article/716976
oa.newoa.goldoa.predatoryoa.qualityoa.credibilityoa.southoa.incentivesoa.journalsPlan S feedback | Innovations in Scholarly Communication<p>"<span>We have a few overall recommendations:</span></p>
<ul>
<li><strong>Improve on the why</strong><span>: make it more clear that Plan S is part of a broader transition towards open science and not only to make papers available and OA cheaper. It is part of changes to make science more efficient, reliable and reusable.</span></li>
<li><span>Plan S brings great potential, and with that also comes great responsibility for cOAlition S funders. From the start, plan S has been criticized for its perceived focus (in intent and/or expected effects) on APC-based OA publishing. In our reading, both the principles and the implementation guidance recognize for all forms of full OA publishing, including diamond OA and new forms of publishing like overlay journals. However, it will depend to no small extent on the </span><strong>actual recognition and support of non-APC based gold OA models by cOAlitionS funders</strong><span> whether plan S will indeed encourage such bibliodiversity and accompanying equity in publishing opportunities. Examples of initiatives to consider in this regard are </span><a href="https://pkp.sfu.ca/ojs/">OJS journal systems</a><span> by PKP, </span><a href="https://coko.foundation/product-suite/">Coko open source technology</a><span> based initiatives, </span><a href="https://www.openlibhums.org/">Open Library of Humanities</a><span>, </span><a href="https://scoap3.org/"><span>Scoap</span><span>3</span></a><span>, </span><a href="https://freejournals.org/">Free Journal Network</a><span>, and also </span><a href="http://www.scielo.org/">Scielo</a><span> and </span><a href="https://www.redalyc.org/">Redalyc</a><span> in Latin America.</span></li>
<li><span>The issue of evaluation and assessment is tied closely to the effects Plan S can or will have. It is up to cOAlitionS funders to take actionable steps to turn their commitment to </span><strong>fundamentally revise the incentive and reward system of science</strong><span> in line with DORA into practice,</span> <span>at the same time they are putting the Plan S principles into practice. The two can mutually support each other, as open access journals that also implement other open science criteria such as pre-registration, requirements for FAIR data and selection based on rigorous methodological criteria will facilitate evaluation based on research quality. </span></li>
<li><span>Make sure to (also) provide Plan S in the form of </span><strong>one integrated document</strong><span> containing the why, the what and the how on one document. Currently it is too easy to overlook the why. That document should be openly licensed and shared in a reliable archive.</span></li>
<li><span>In the implementation document include a (graphical) </span><strong>timeline</strong><span> of changes and deadlines...."</span></li>
</ul>
Sun, 10 Feb 2019 11:40:00 -0500https://101innovations.wordpress.com/2019/02/08/plan-s-feedback/?fbclid=IwAR1IOS3sZVfDRUDUUbqyYeoM6yf6sSXg5ErszpII-q8ckvzev9Q1Dh8ezc8
oa.newoa.plan_soa.open_scienceoa.feesoa.no-feeoa.goldoa.fairoa.dataoa.incentivesoa.ojsoa.cokooa.assessmentoa.doraoa.flossoa.scielooa.redalycoa.open_library_humanitiesoa.journalsDutch universities give open access another boost<p>"<strong>The Dutch universities will give open access an extra boost from 2019 by starting a pilot titled ‘You share, we take care’ to make publications available after six months in collaboration with researchers. </strong></p>
<p>In order to achieve the Dutch ambition of 100% open access in 2020, we have made agreements with many publishers regarding open-access publishing. Currently, this is not yet possible for all types of publications or journals. That is why, starting 31 January, authors will be facilitated in making their academic works available to the general public online six months after publication through university repositories....</p>
<p>The Dutch Copyright Act allows for this due to Section 25fa, also known as the Taverne amendment. This amendment has been translated into a number of concrete principles and will now be implemented as a pilot by the VSNU. Pursuant to the amendment, there are a few conditions that authors must meet in order to participate in the pilot. The academic research on which the work is based must have been funded wholly or partly with Dutch public funds, and the author or co-author must have an employment contract with a Dutch institution. Furthermore, the work must not exceed a certain length. During the pilot, authors who wish to share their work online will receive additional support where necessary. ..."</p>
Sat, 02 Feb 2019 06:15:00 -0500https://www.vsnu.nl/en_GB/news-items.html/nieuwsbericht/495-nederlandse-universiteiten-geven-open-access-extra-impuls
oa.newoa.netherlandsoa.universitiesoa.greenoa.legislationoa.incentivesoa.copyrightoa.heioa.depositsoa.repositoriesOpen Science in a European context: EU networking: Open Science in Horizon 2020 and Horizon Europe<p>Open Science = Systemic transition of science system which affects the way</p>
<p>• research is performed</p>
<p>• knowledge is shared/diffused/preserved</p>
<p>• research projects/results are evaluated</p>
<p>• research is funded</p>
<p>• researchers are rewarded</p>
<p>• future researchers are trained</p>
Wed, 30 Jan 2019 09:24:00 -0500https://www.ffg.at/sites/default/files/02_OS_European_Context_Bjoernsson.pdf
oa.newoa.slidesoa.presentationsoa.eventsoa.collaborationoa.austriaoa.horizon2020oa.incentivesoa.assessmentoa.open_scienceoa.benefitsoa.mandatesoa.policiesoa.fundersOPEN SCIENCE IN HORIZON 2020 AND HORIZON EUROPE<p>Open Science is the practice of science in such a way that others can collaborate and contribute, where research data, lab notes and other research processes are freely available, under terms that enable reuse, redistribution and reproduction of the research and its underlying data and methods.</p>
Wed, 30 Jan 2019 09:18:00 -0500https://www.ffg.at/sites/default/files/01_OS_H2020_HEU_TZM.pdf
oa.newoa.austriaoa.horizon2020oa.presentationsoa.slidesoa.open_scienceoa.collaborationoa.infrastructureoa.metricsoa.assessmentoa.incentivesoa.eventsoa.mandatesoa.discussionsoa.policiesoa.fundersOpen Science challenges, benefits and tips in early career and beyond<p>Abstract: The movement towards open science is an unavoidable consequence of seemingly pervasive failures to replicate previous research. This transition comes with great benefits but also significant challenges that are likely to afflict those who carry out the research, usually Early Career Researchers (ECRs). Here, we describe key benefits including reputational gains, increased chances of publication and a broader increase in the reliability of research. These are balanced by challenges that we have encountered, and which involve increased costs in terms of flexibility, time and issues with the current incentive structure, all of which seem to affect ECRs acutely. Although there are major obstacles to the early adoption of open science, overall open science practices should benefit both the ECR and improve the quality and plausibility of research. We review three benefits, three challenges and provide suggestions from the perspective of ECRs for moving towards open science practices.</p>
Thu, 24 Jan 2019 07:06:00 -0500https://psyarxiv.com/3czyt
oa.newoa.ecroa.open_scienceoa.benefitsoa.reproducibilityoa.incentivesoa.qualityRecommendations on Open Science and Innovation - ERA Portal Austria<p>Recommendations by the ERAC Standing Working Group on Open Science and Innovation (SWG OSI) in open science and innovation of 18 December 2018.</p>
<p>In the spirit shared by all Member States on the need to pursue a national and European policy towards an open science system, according to the Council Conclusions on the transition towards an Open Science system adopted on 27 May 2016 (9526/16) , the Standing Working Group on Open Science and Innovation recommends ERAC to:
1. Consider ‘immediate FAIR and open’ the default for all research output.
2. Promote and protect open science within the European copyright legal framework.
3. Develop and advocate an understanding of innovation between Member States that is built on open science.
4. Develop end user skills for better appropriation of knowledge deriving from research.
5. Foster involvement of citizens in science.
6. Adjust assessment, reward, and evaluation systems.
7. Foster open peer review as the default legitimate approach for scientific validation.
8. Require that infrastructures, processes and workflows underpinning the European research system adhere to and adopt open standards.
9. Facilitate full transparency for terms and conditions of subscription agreements and open access deals.</p>
<div> </div>
Sun, 20 Jan 2019 09:37:00 -0500https://era.gv.at/object/document/4508
oa.newoa.austriaoa.recommendationsoa.infrastructureoa.dataoa.fairoa.reportsoa.copyrightoa.assessmentoa.incentivesoa.negotiationsoa.standardsoa.business_modelsoa.peer_reviewPlan S: An American Librarian in the Netherlands – Micah Vandegrift – Medium<p>"The simple point that I plan to return with is this — alignment is the new hustle. When Plans, Programmes, and Policies align with Sustainability, Stability, and Standardization then we’ll be riding a wave into the setting sun, whistling while we work on locavore open knowledge (to fully integrate all my ridiculous metaphors.)"</p>
Sat, 19 Jan 2019 10:34:00 -0500https://medium.com/@mlvandeg/plan-s-f58bca7a4303
oa.newoa.plan_soa.netherlandsoa.europeoa.standardsoa.sustainabilityoa.collaborationoa.mandatesoa.incentivesoa.librariesoa.policiesoa.economics_ofPayouts push professors towards predatory journals<p>"<em>If South Africa truly wants to encourage good research, it must stop paying academics by the paper...</em></p>
<p><span>Why are South Africans relying so much on journals that do little or nothing to ensure quality? In an effort to boost academic productivity, the country’s education department launched a subsidy scheme in 2005. It now awards roughly US$7,000 for each research paper published in an accredited journal. Depending on the institution, up to half of this amount is paid directly to faculty members. At least one South African got roughly $40,000 for research papers published in 2016 — about 60% of a full professor’s annual salary. There is no guarantee (or expectation) that a researcher will use this money for research purposes. Most simply see it as a financial reward over and above their salaries....</span></p>
<p><span>In my experience, publication subsidies promote several other counterproductive practices. Some researchers salami-slice their research to spread it across more papers. Others target low-quality journals that are deemed less demanding...."</span></p>
<p> </p>
Wed, 16 Jan 2019 06:19:00 -0500https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-00120-1
oa.newoa.incentivesoa.predatoryoa.credibilityoa.qualityoa.south_africa10 ans d'Open Access à l'Université de Liège - YouTube<p>From Google's English: "<span>Il y a 10 ans naissait ORBi (Open Repository and Bibliography), un répertoire institutionnel qui vise à collecter, préserver et diffuser la production scientifique des membres de l'Université de Liège. "</span></p>
Sat, 12 Jan 2019 06:31:00 -0500https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=DimDThNcsH4
oa.newoa.frenchoa.videooa.greenoa.caseoa.case.policiesoa.case.policies.universitiesoa.case.repositoriesoa.incentivesoa.mandatesoa.policies.universitiesoa.history_ofoa.repositoriesoa.heioa.policiesoa.universitiesoa.u.liegeThe (mis)alignment of Open Science and research evaluation: addressing complexity with existing resources and context-sensitive evaluation | EuroCRIS<p>The presentation addresses the misalignment between the principles of Open Science and the current mechanisms for research evaluation, which do not accurately capture the aspects that should reward Open Science practitioners. An overview is first provided of the present Open Science policy context both at an European and a national level in the Netherlands. The concept of Openness Profile is introduced, devised by a Knowledge Exchange working group as a means to capture good Open Science practice at a bottom level. Finally, an 'Evaluative Inquiry' approach is proposed as an alternative research evaluation framework that captures Open Science practice by changing the assessment methodology.</p>
Sat, 12 Jan 2019 05:06:00 -0500https://dspacecris.eurocris.org/handle/11366/719
oa.newoa.netherlandsoa.open_scienceoa.evaluationoa.profilesoa.assessmentoa.p&toa.incentivesoa.obstaclesA manifesto for reproducible science | Wonkhe | Analysis<p>"<span>What can we do? </span><span>A group of UK researchers recently published a </span><a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-016-0021">Manifesto for Reproducible Science</a><span>, </span><span>where we argue for the adoption of a range of measures to optimize key elements of the scientific process: methods, reporting and dissemination, reproducibility, evaluation and incentives. Crucially, most of the measures we propose require the engagement of funders, journals and institutions. However, while many funders and journals have begun to engage seriously with these issues – increasing the use of reporting checklists, and allowing the inclusion of methodology annexes on grants, for example – most institutions have been slow to do anything. And institutions control the strongest incentives – hiring and promotion.</span></p>
<p><span>We identified two broad areas where institutions could foster higher quality research – methods (e.g., by providing improved methodological training, and promoting collaboration and team science), and incentives (e.g., by rewarding open science and reproducible research practice). ..."</span></p>
Mon, 07 Jan 2019 07:23:00 -0500https://wonkhe.com/blogs/a-manifesto-for-reproducible-science/
oa.declarationsoa.reproducibilityoa.incentivesoa.qualityoa.trainingoa.open_scienceCongratulations on the Promotion. But Did Science Get a Demotion? - The New York Times<p>"Moves toward <a href="https://osf.io/" title="">open science</a>, and for a change in the academic environment that currently incentivizes secrecy and the hoarding of data, are perhaps our best chance to improve <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/29/upshot/science-needs-a-solution-for-the-temptation-of-positive-results.html?module=inline" title="">research reproducibility</a> Recent studies have found that an alarmingly high share of experiments that have been rerun have not produced results in line with the original research...."</p>
Wed, 02 Jan 2019 06:09:00 -0500https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/31/upshot/congratulations-on-the-promotion-but-did-science-get-a-demotion.html
oa.newoa.open_scienceoa.reproducibilityoa.dataoa.incentivesoa.fundingThe perverse effects of open access in academic publications | Science | Spain's News<p>"Being in agreement with the concern and intentionality of Plan S, I believe that the alternative that it raises is far from being an adequate solution, and that the problems it will generate will be much more pernicious than those caused by the current system. ..."</p>
Sat, 29 Dec 2018 11:16:00 -0500https://spainsnews.com/the-perverse-effects-of-open-access-in-academic-publications-science/amp/?__twitter_impression=true
oa.newoa.incentivesoa.objectionsoa.plan_soa.debatesGo To Hellman: Towards Impact-based OA Funding<p>"What if there was a funding channel for monographs that allocated support based on a measurement of impact, such as might be generated from data aggregated by a trusted "Data Trust"? (I'll call it the "OA Impact Trust", because I'd like to imagine that "impact" rather than a usage proxy such as "downloads" is what we care about.)</p>
<p>Here's how it might work:</p>
<p> </p>
<ol>
<li>Libraries and institutions register with the OA Impact Trust, providing it with a way to identify usage and impact relevant to the library or institutions.</li>
<li>Aggregators and publishers deposit monograph metadata and usage/impact streams with the Trust.</li>
<li>The Trust provides <a href="https://www.projectcounter.org/">COUNTER</a> reports (suitably adapted) for relevant OA monograph usage/impact to libraries and institutions. This allows them to compare OA and non-OA ebook usage side-by-side.</li>
<li>Libraries and institutions allocate some funding to OA monographs.</li>
<li>The Trust passes funding to monograph publishers and participating distributors. ..."</li>
</ol>
<p> </p>Sat, 29 Dec 2018 11:13:00 -0500https://go-to-hellman.blogspot.com/2018/12/towards-impact-based-oa-funding.html
oa.newoa.fundingoa.booksoa.business_modelsoa.impactoa.downloadsoa.usageoa.incentivesOpen Science - OECD<p>Open science encompasses unhindered access to scientific articles, access to data from public research, and collaborative research enabled by ICT tools and incentives. Broadening access to scientific publications and data is at the heart of open science, so that research outputs are in the hands of as many as possible, and potential benefits are spread as widely as possible.</p>
Thu, 13 Dec 2018 06:20:00 -0500http://www.oecd.org/sti/inno/open-science.htm
oa.newoa.franceoa.open_scienceoa.dataoa.accessoa.policiesoa.principlesoa.guidesoa.incentivesSEED2019 – Scientific Ecosystem Experimentation with Decentralization<p>"Cutting-edge decentralized technologies and distributed ledgers such as blockchain have great potential for incentivizing collaboration and openness in science, providing new ways of funding research projects, and empowering the scientific community to be appropriately rewarded for their work. SEED welcomes anyone involved in the scientific ecosystem to our program. Join talks and contribute with your own innovative thinking to specific applications. You do not need to be a blockchain expert — we will provide high-quality training during the event in Davos to bring you up to speed!"</p>
Thu, 06 Dec 2018 08:09:00 -0500https://seed2019.io/
oa.newoa.blockchainoa.eventsoa.incentivesoa.collaboration"Supporting the Proliferation of Data-Sharing Scholars" by Ali Krzton<p>Abstract: Librarians champion the value of openness in scholarship and have been powerful advocates for the sharing of research data. College and university administrators have recently joined in the push for data sharing due to funding mandates. However, the researchers who create and control the data usually determine whether and how data is shared, so it is worthwhile to look at what they are incentivized to do. The current scholarly publishing landscape plus the promotion and tenure process create a “prisoner’s dilemma” for researchers as they decide whether or not to share data, consistent with the observation that researchers in general are eager for others to share data but reluctant to do so themselves. If librarians encourage researchers to share data and promote openness without simultaneously addressing the academic incentive structure, those who are intrinsically motivated to share data will be selected against via the promotion and tenure process. This will cause those who are hostile to sharing to be disproportionately recruited into the senior ranks of academia. To mitigate the risk of this unintended consequence, librarians must advocate for a change in incentives alongside the call for greater openness. Highly-cited datasets must be given similar weight to highly-cited articles in promotion and tenure decisions in order for researchers to reap the rewards of their sharing. Librarians can help by facilitating data citation to track the impact of datasets and working to persuade higher administration of the value of rewarding data sharing in tenure and promotion.</p>
Tue, 04 Dec 2018 05:35:00 -0500https://escholarship.umassmed.edu/jeslib/vol7/iss2/6/
oa.newoa.dataoa.p&toa.incentivesoa.universitiesoa.citationsoa.heiBarriers, incentives, and benefits of the open educational resources (OER) movement: An exploration into instructor perspectives | Henderson | First Monday<p>Abstract: Open educational resource (OER) barriers, incentives, and benefits are at the forefront of educator and institution interests as global use of OER evolves. Research into OER use, perceptions, costs, and outcomes is becoming more prevalent; however, it is still in its infancy. Understanding barriers to full adoption, administration, and acceptance of OER is paramount to fully supporting its growth and success in education worldwide. The purpose of this research was to replicate and extend Kursun, Cagiltay, and Can’s (2014) Turkish study to include international participants. Kursun, et al. surveyed OpenCourseWare (OCW) faculty on their perceptions of OER barriers, incentives, and benefits. Through replication, these findings provide a glimpse into the reality of the international educators’ perceptions of barriers, incentives, and benefits of OER use to assist in the creation of practical solutions and actions for both policy makers and educators alike. The results of this replication study indicate that barriers to OER include institutional policy, lack of incentives, and a need for more support and education in the creating, using, and sharing of instructional materials. A major benefit to OER identified by educators is the continued collegial atmosphere of sharing and lifelong learning.</p>
Sun, 02 Dec 2018 06:46:00 -0500https://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/9172
oa.oeroa.obstaclesoa.newoa.incentivesoa.attitudesoa.coursewareoa.benefitsToward an Open Knowledge Research Graph: The Serials Librarian: Vol 0, No 0<p>Abstract: Knowledge graphs facilitate the discovery of information by organizing it into entities and describing the relationships of those entities to each other and to established ontologies. They are popular with search and e-commerce companies and could address the biggest problems in scientific communication, according to Sören Auer of the Technische Informationsbibliothek and Leibniz University of Hannover. In his NASIG vision session, Auer introduced attendees to knowledge graphs and explained how they could make scientific research more discoverable, efficient, and collaborative. Challenges include incentivizing researchers to participate and creating the training data needed to automate the generation of knowledge graphs in all fields of research.</p>
Sun, 02 Dec 2018 06:41:00 -0500https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0361526X.2019.1540272
oa.newoa.paywalledoa.incentivesoa.discoverabilityoa.collaborationoa.trainingNordic Open Science on the agenda in Stockholm — NordForsk<p>How far have the Nordic countries reached when it comes to addressing open science? What incentives and rewards are needed to engage scientists to openly share their research? And how do we involve other parts of society more closely in research? These were a few of the questions being discussed during the Nordic Open Science Conference 15-16 November 2018 in Stockholm.</p>
Sat, 01 Dec 2018 02:07:00 -0500https://www.nordforsk.org/en/news/nordic-open-science-on-the-agenda-in-stockholm
oa.newoa.swedenoa.open_scienceoa.incentivesoa.eventsbjoern.brembs.blog » Maybe try another kind of mandate?<p>"For about the same time as the individual mandates, if not for longer, funders have also provided guidelines for the kind of infrastructure the institutions should provide grant recipients with. In contrast to individual mandates, these guidelines have not been enforced at all. For instance, the DFG endorses the <a href="http://www.dfg.de/download/pdf/foerderung/programme/wgi/european_charter_access_research_infrastructures.pdf">European Charter for Access to Research Infrastructures</a> and suggests (in <a href="http://www.dfg.de/download/pdf/foerderung/antragstellung/forschungsdaten/guidelines_research_data.pdf">more</a>than just one <a href="http://www.dfg.de/download/pdf/foerderung/programme/wgi/basic_requirements_research_infrastructures.pdf">document</a>) that institutions provide DFG grant recipients with research infrastructure that includes, e.g., data repositories for access and long-term archiving. To my knowledge, such repositories are far from standard at German institutions. In addition, the DFG is part of an ongoing, nation-wide <a href="https://www.allianzinitiative.de/?lang=en">initiative</a> to strengthen digital infrastructures for text, data and code. As an example, within this initiative, we have created <a href="https://zenodo.org/record/1172988#.W_5ZLeJReZQ">guidelines</a> for how research institutions should support the creation and use of scientific code and software. However, to this day, there is no mechanism in place to certify compliance of the funded institutions with these documents.</p>
<p>In the light of these aspects, would it not be wise to enforce these guidelines to an extent that using these research infrastructures would save researchers effort and make them compliant with the individual mandates at the same time? In other words, could the funders not save a lot of time and energy by enforcing institutions to provide research infrastructure that enables their grant recipients to effortlessly become compliant with individual mandates? In fact, such institutional ‘mandates’ would make the desired behavior also the most time and effort saving behavior, perhaps making individual mandates redundant?</p>
<p>Instead of monitoring individual grant recipients or journals or articles, funders would only have to implement, e.g., a certification procedure. Only applications from certified institutions would qualify for research grants. Such strict requirements are rather commonplace as, e.g., in many countries only <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Educational_accreditation">accredited institutions</a> qualify....</p>
<p>Open standards underlying the infrastructure ensure a lively market of service providers, as the standards make the services truly substitutable: if an institution is not satisfied with the service of company A, it can choose company B for the next contract, ensuring sufficient competition to keep prices down permanently. For this reason, objections to such a certification process can only come from one group of stakeholders: the legacy publishers who, faced with actual competition, will not be able to enjoy their huge profit margins any longer, while all other stakeholders enjoy their much improved situation all around."</p>
Wed, 28 Nov 2018 08:14:00 -0500http://bjoern.brembs.net/2018/11/maybe-try-another-kind-of-mandate/
oa.newoa.mandatesoa.complianceoa.incentivesoa.standardsoa.academic_freedomoa.infrastructureoa.germanyoa.policies.fundersoa.repositories.dataoa.flossoa.policiesoa.repositoriesoa.fundersOpenUP Hub - OpenUP Policy Recommendations<p>"Open Access and Open Scholarship have revolutionised the way scholarly artefacts are evaluated and published, while the introduction of new technologies and media in scientific workflows has changed “how” and to “whom” science is communicated. The modes of interaction between the public and the scientific community are also changing due to the internet and social media. The OpenUP project studied key aspects and challenges of the currently transforming science landscape to provide a cohesive framework for the review-disseminate-assess phases of the research lifecycle that is fit to support and promote Open Science. OpenUP synthesised and validated key project results and derived five recommendations to foster the take-up of novel practices in scholarly peer review, research dissemination and assessment while considering existing gaps in evidence and disciplinary differences. ..."</p>
Mon, 26 Nov 2018 10:37:00 -0500https://www.openuphub.eu/openup-policy-recommendations
oa.newoa.openupoa.recommendationsoa.policiesoa.incentivesoa.oa.trainingoa.altmetricsoa.metricsDORA, Plan S and the (open) future of research evaluation<p>"Slides from a talk [by Stephen Curry] given to the general assembly of Science Europe in Brussels on 22 Nov 2018. Gives an overview of the problems of over-metricised research evaluation and how this might be tackled, in part through initiatives driven by DORA, and how they are linked with drives such as Plan S to promote open science...."</p>
Sun, 25 Nov 2018 10:53:00 -0500https://figshare.com/articles/DORA_Plan_S_and_the_open_future_of_research_evaluation/7378184
oa.newoa.doraoa.metricsoa.incentivesoa.p&toa.assessmentoa.plan_soa.slidesoa.open_scienceoa.presentationsPROJET DE DÉCRET VISANT À L’ÉTABLISSEMENT D’UNE POLITIQUE DE LIBRE ACCÈS AUX PUBLICATIONS SCIENTIFIQUES (OPEN ACCESS)<p>From Google's English: </p>
<p>"Art 5. The researchers deposit in a naked archive institutionally all their publications from their research carried out in whole or in part on public funds emanating totally or partially from the French Community, in ex- tenso , immediately after acceptance of the by an editor.</p>
<p>Art 6. Each institution of higher education is required to have or attach to an archive institutional digital depend on them to fulfill their obligations deposit. This institutional digital archive tional may be institution-specific or common to several institutions. There must be within each Academic Pole at least one digital archive accessible to researchers from institutions that constitute it</p>
<p>Art 7. Any person, committee or scientific commission of the French Community responsible to evaluate individual or collective files within the framework of appointment, promotion, research credits, take into consideration for the evaluation of the publications of the and on pain of nullity, the lists generated from the institutional digital archives se- the appropriate model for the specific context to the exclusion of any other list...."</p>
Thu, 22 Nov 2018 06:07:00 -0500http://archive.pfwb.be/10000000208d0d1
oa.franceoa.mandatesoa.greenoa.iroa.repositoriesoa.policiesoa.assessmentoa.p&toa.incentivesoa.frenchEUA: Open Science : Enjeux et stratégies (EUA: Open Science: Issues and Strategies)<p>From Google's English: </p>
<pre>"Main causes of difficulties (for European Universities)
Concentration of the publishing market, oligopolies and financial power:
• Profit Maximization Search
• Control of prestige journals and large databases of publications +
piloting the reviewing process
• Lack of transparency
• Sales of value-added services
• Evaluation methods essentially based on bibliometrics (factor
of impact)  researchers' appetite for prestigious journals  reinforces the major publishers
• Regulatory limitations:
• Transfer of copyrights and long embargo period curbs filing in archives
open, uncertainties among researchers"</pre>Fri, 16 Nov 2018 02:39:00 -0500https://www.swissuniversities.ch/fileadmin/swissuniversities/Dokumente/Hochschulpolitik/Conf%C3%A9rence_OA__26.10.2018/NEW_NEW/20181026_JP-Finance.pdf
oa.newoa.switzerlandoa.frenchoa.euaoa.heioa.universitiesoa.strategiesoa.open_scienceoa.assessmentoa.metricsoa.incentivesoa.policiesoa.mandatesoa.economics_ofoa.business_models